Attainable Housing Final Report

Findings and Recommendations

Mid-Columbia Economic Development District

Contract # 102-2135-13

Submitted March 2014

1 | P a g e

2 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mid-Columbia Economic Development District (MCEDD) entered into a contract with the State of Oregon in October 2013 to identify means to address a critical economic development barrier in the region: the availability of workforce housing. In response to feedback received by the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, the Governor’s Office had determined it was necessary to develop a strategy, approach or project to leverage investment in creating workforce housing in the Hood River, Wasco and Sherman counties region. Tasks and Deliverables

1) Hold 2-3 meetings with community leaders and Governor’s Office staff. 2) Develop a Findings and Recommendations Report 3) Support an Outreach Plan

a. Briefing Local and regional leaders b. Explore funding partnerships to support regional capacity work

4) Finalize an Implementation Plan Results Meetings with community leaders and Governor’s Office staff were held on October 17, 2013 and December 6, 2013. Attendees included representatives from City of Hood River, City of The Dalles, City of Rufus, MCEDD, Mid-Columbia Housing Authority, Columbia River Gorge Commission, Mid-Columbia Council of Governments, Port of The Dalles, Northern Wasco County School District, Sherman County, Gilliam County, Wasco County, Hood River County, DLCD, Oregon Housing and Community Services, Governor’s Office, and private developers and businesses. From these meetings the Attainable Housing working group developed a recommendation to proceed with an immediate action opportunity to seed a Revolving Loan Fund while continuing efforts to develop long term capacity options and explore funding. This proposal was presented to and approved by the North Central Regional Solutions Advisory Committee. Outreach then involved pairs of City/County representatives working together to seek endorsement from the cities and counties in the affected geography. MCEDD staff simultaneously drafted a proposal for the Revolving Loan Fund for presentation to funding sources through Regional Solutions and identified additional resources to support workforce housing initiatives. During the course of the project terminology transitioned from “workforce housing” to “attainable housing” in order to incorporate housing availability for all income levels and encompass all types of housing, including single- and multi-family housing options.

3 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary…………………………………………………….…………… 3 Findings and Recommendations……………………………………………………. 5 Implementation Plan .…………………….………………………………………… 9 Attachments……………………………….…………………………………………. 12

4 | P a g e

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Where We Started A primary priority of the North Central Regional Solutions Advisory Committee in 2013 was addressing a shortage of quality workforce housing options. MCEDD was contracted to provide an analysis of options to address the challenge.

Geography covered: “North Central,” or Hood River, Wasco, and Sherman counties

Throughout the region, much rental housing is either sub-standard or dedicated to the vacation market, which is beyond the price point of moderate or even upper-income wage earners. Traditional publicly-funded housing programs are not designed to address this need, and the economy has not supported a full private solution, in part due to the vacation and second-home markets attracting investor interest. As a result, the workforce in the region suffers, as does the ongoing opportunity for the region to support business development and growth in the region. To address the barrier and begin closing the gap, this analysis sought to design solutions to facilitate mechanisms flexible enough to incorporate the wide range of housing concerns found throughout the region under the umbrella “attainable housing.” As a term, “attainable housing” incorporates housing availability for all income levels and encompasses all types of housing, including single- and multi-family housing options.

5 | P a g e

There have been a number of efforts to analyze the issue. In September 2013, Oregon Housing and Community Services hosted a meeting with local leaders that summarized many of these. Notes from the meeting read: “There have been a number of meetings in the North Central Region to understand the WF Housing problem since 2007. There is consensus about the lack of housing options as an impediment to building healthy communities. In Hood River and The Dalles, there has been nominal new construction of multifamily rental units in well over 10 years. In addition, Hood River continues to experience issues with increased vacation rentals, diminishing the rental inventory. Many low-middle income workers are commuting, thus increasing their burden. On the other end of the region, Sherman County (Rufus, Wasco, Moro) is trying to accommodate wind farm workers, along with teachers/law enforcement and other middle income earners with Single Family homeownership opportunities. This side of the region struggles with new homeowners NOT being able to acquire construction loans for new construction of residences.” The analysis therefore started with acknowledgment that first, housing is a complex issue and second, the region has gone through multiple meetings and planning efforts with great resulting ideas; many of which have been resource constrained and not implemented. There was a strong determination by the region that extensive planning and analysis has been conducted to develop an understanding of the regional needs and the consensus involves a need to move to action. There was also an understanding that the housing issue manifests itself in different ways for the counties in the region, therefore solutions must be flexible to address a wide range of housing needs. Based on those understandings, recommendations from the process include:

• Compile existing documents and studies. • Develop an Attainable Housing Revolving Loan Fund. • Develop long term capacity and continue ongoing planning and analysis. • Leverage best practices from other communities

Why it is Important Housing is both a quality of life and an economic issue as it is part of the necessary infrastructure for business success. The regional issue boils down to a shortage of quality housing stock at price ranges and rental levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of workers and households in the region. Housing constraints in the region are severe enough to 1) limit the ability to attract and retain businesses and 2) hamper the ability of employers to attract and maintain a professional workforce. The shortage of quality housing is a deterrent to businesses, particularly those of any size, which seek to employ a local workforce. If action is not taken, the region will continue to face acute housing shortages leading to a decline in economic prosperity. The region, as a whole, has benefited through the growth of local businesses, particularly those in the technology sector. The three North Central counties contribute greatly to the State’s economy and have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the state with Hood River County at 5.3%, Sherman County at 6.4% and Wasco County at 7.7% as of November 2013.

“Housing in the Gorge is often a challenge for our employees. The

main challenges include low inventory, such as lack of multi-

bedroom apartments and ‘starter homes’ for young families, and high cost. Many of our junior employees and those in lower pay brackets find

themselves priced out of both the rental and purchase markets.” - Mary

Margaret Evans, Insitu

6 | P a g e

With key large employers expressing concern about their ability to attract and retain a local workforce, this is a critical issue to address in order to secure the opportunity for continue economic prosperity. Process In developing the findings, recommendations and implementation plan, MCEDD engaged local officials and primary stakeholders in an Attainable Housing workgroup. Meetings with the workgroup were held on October 17, 2013 and December 6, 2013. Attendees included representatives from the City of Hood River, City of The Dalles, City of Rufus, Mid-Columbia EDD, Mid-Columbia Housing, Columbia River Gorge Commission, Mid-Columbia Council of Governments, Port of The Dalles, Northern Wasco County School District, Sherman County, Gilliam County, Wasco County, Hood River County, DLCD, Oregon Housing and Community Services, Governor’s Office, and private developers and businesses. These meetings were followed by presentations to the Regional Solutions Advisory Committee and to local governing boards to ensure broad community support. Primary team members engaged in outreach included:

• Mayor Arthur Babitz and Commissioner Maui Meyer presented to local governing bodies in Hood River County and discussed the issue and recommendations with some local employers. Letters of support have already been received from City of Hood River, Hood River County, Port of Hood River and Hood River County School District.

• Mayor Steve Lawrence and Commissioner Rod Runyon presented to local governing bodies in Wasco County. MCEDD staff met with large local employers. Letters of support have already been received from City of The Dalles and Wasco County. Additional presentations are anticipated, including one scheduled for the City of Mosier.

• MCEDD’s Executive Director will be presenting to the Sherman County Court in March. Need As previously noted, the attainable housing issue is a regional concern with variation in specific needs across the three counties. Generally these include:

• In Wasco County and its communities, needs include rehabilitation of existing housing stock, increasing opportunities for senior housing, and using existing spaces in new ways.

• In Sherman County, the primary issue is a shortage of single family housing stock. • In Hood River County a primary concern centers around the opportunity for people to

live where they work: a limited land supply, increasing demand and a strong vacation rental market have priced homes out of the range of workers in the County.

Recommendations for addressing the issue therefore seek to look at regional commonalities and offering solutions that can be flexible to local concerns. Recommendations Recommendation #1: Compile Existing Documents/Studies The first recommendation is to compile existing information from existing market studies, comprehensive plans and other relevant local and regional documents to ensure shared regional understanding. Scott Edelman, Central Oregon Regional Representative from Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development, conducted this review. It is detailed in the “Implementation Plan” section of this report.

7 | P a g e

Recommendation #2: Develop an Attainable Housing Revolving Loan Fund The second recommendation is to proceed with immediate action to seed a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) which will increase access to capital and results in bricks and mortar attainable housing developments for the region. The opportunity presented through the Attainable Housing Revolving Loan Fund project is the opportunity to seed a self-sustaining long term resource which leverages public and private investment and addresses a critical impediment to future economic growth in the region. Recommendation #3: Increase Long Term Capacity The third recommendation is to continue development of long term capacity and explore funding options to support ongoing capacity through organizations such as Mid-Columbia Housing Authority. This requires commitment from local government partners to identify, review and accept recommendations for removing the non-financial barriers to the attainable housing issue. Recommendation #4: Leverage Best Practices The final recommendation is to seek opportunities to share and learn from best practices in attainable housing policies and practices from other communities affected by similar issues.

8 | P a g e

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The four recommendations presented in this report have each been implemented or are in process. The following details the plan and progress on implementation. Compilation of Existing Studies and Documents (Recommendation #1) Scott Edelman, Central Oregon Regional Representative from Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development conducted a review of existing studies and documents which included:

• City of The Dalles Comprehensive Plan (2001) • City of Hood River Comprehensive Plan (1983) and more recent, supplemental

updates • Cascade Locks Comprehensive Plan (2001) • Sherman County Housing Needs Survey (2009) • Housing Needs Analysis, Mid-Columbia Housing Authority (2012) • Housing Market Analysis for Hood River County (2005) • Prior and Associates Memorandum Regarding a Request for Reconsideration of Hood

River County’s Affordable and Workforce Housing Priority Rating (2009) These files and the compilation from Scott Edelman were shared through a regional workspace on fmyi.com specifically established to support the attainable housing effort. The report is now available electronically upon request. Develop an Attainable Housing RLF (Recommendation #2) A proposal for $2 million in seed funding for an Attainable Housing RLF was presented to Regional Solutions. The Attainable Housing Revolving Loan Fund will be used as a gap financing tool and will not compete with other resources, which allows leveraging of state funds with resources available through traditional commercial funders, federal programs and private funders.

• Use of the fund: Pre-construction, rehabilitation and loan guarantees. Ineligible uses include pre-development costs and construction/rehab for vacation rentals.

• Ultimate Borrower requirements: Collateral and matching funds are required. Infrastructure and pre-development must already be complete in order to seek funding and provide further leverage for the state funds.

• Public decision making and vetting is required, with a project sponsor from a city or county.

Three models were presented for governance of the fund: 1) Existing regional entity 2) Existing statewide entity. 3) New committee/body or other. Preference was to use an existing regional entity, MCEDD, given the level of existing lending experience and local control. The administration of the RLF is anticipated to be primarily covered through interest and fees generated by loans to ultimate borrowers, combined with local contributions. This financial model has been successfully employed since 1980 by MCEDD in operation of Revolving Loan Funds for business lending.

9 | P a g e

The Advisory Committee requested $2 million in state funds to seed the Revolving Loan Fund and act as a catalyst to secure additional funding. As part of MCEDD’s contract with the state, MCEDD was asked to explore additional funding opportunities. Leverage will be achieved through private developer/ultimate borrower contributions which are required of each loan, through direct contributions to establish the Revolving Loan Fund base, and through local resources dedicated to supporting solutions to the attainable housing problem. These contributions include:

• Each loan is anticipated to require a borrower contribution and loans, as a portfolio average, will not exceed 75% of the project total. At least 25% of the ultimate loan will require private or outside resource contributions. The estimated leverage through this component is $1,000,000.

• The Columbia Gorge Oregon Investment Board has authorized $200,000 for a housing loan in 2014 to a qualified borrower which will further leverage the state funds in addressing this issue.

• Hood River County has allocated funds which can be used to support solutions to the housing problem given that it is particularly acute in the County. The fund is currently at $235,000, but has the potential to increase over the next year. This fund will leverage financial resources through Hood River County for developments that meet their criteria.

• Sherman County has dedicated $280,000 to support workforce housing projects in the County, through loans and loan guarantees.

• Additional leverage which is not quantified above includes all pre-development costs and infrastructure for development, tax credits used by developers and anticipated employer assisted housing contributions. The region will further use the state regional solutions investment as a catalyst to secure additional funding through private employer contributions and local jurisdictions. The region will access the Agora Investment Platform to support further matching for additional funding resources.

Increase Local Capacity (Recommendation #3) Increasing resources for local capacity, such as through Mid-Columbia Housing Authority, is necessary to address non financing issues including issues with local ordinances, regulations and policies and the lack of available buildable property with adequate zoning, necessary infrastructure, and proximity to amenities. While the workgroup was conducting outreach to local governing bodies, they were simultaneously asking for support for local capacity. Specifically, communities were asked to commit to the ongoing review and consideration of recommendations for removing the non-financial barriers to the attainable housing issue such as:

• Remain informed and expert on Goal 10 of comprehensive plans. Identify and assess useful statistics, demographic trends, needed inventory improvements and forecasting to better assess and anticipate housing needs.

• Affirmatively further Fair Housing. • Continually track opportunities for increased density, density transfers, and in-fill

housing. • Engage in the attainable housing workgroup to determine other mechanisms by which

the region can further the key objectives for capacity enhancement.

10 | P a g e

Leverage Best Practices (Recommendation #4) Implementation of the recommendation to identify and leverage best practices from other regions and communities presents itself in many forms. Related to the RLF, leveraging best practices involves development of the RLF plan based from sample frameworks obtained through both MCEDD and Greater Eastern Oregon Development Corporation. RLF Plan Review Committee volunteers include Amanda Hoey, Joel Madsen, Maui Meyer, Annette Liebe, and Keef Morgan. In relation to capacity, there are multiple best practices to leverage from local entities, local communities, statewide nonprofits, and the State. The compilation of reports completed by Scott Edelman was an important first step. Also during this process, the workgroup took another important first step in looking at what other resources we can leverage locally. While conducting outreach to communities, a number of opportunities arose for sharing information. Communities in Wasco County were able to share their new initiatives, such as the vertical housing initiative which is designed to begin addressing some of the opportunities to encourage use of existing spaces in new ways. Sherman County shared the new opportunities they are putting in place, leveraging county investments to offer loan guarantees and encourage new developments. Hood River County shared their experience, market studies, and perspective on policy impacts they are already beginning to address. Mid-Columbia Housing Authority continues its collaboration with MCEDD in this effort to share their expertise, as well. Finally, as part of the implementation of this best practice we will learn from regions outside of North Central Oregon. Amanda Hoey joined the Interim Legislative Workgroup on Housing Choice, Balance and Affordability which will offer an opportunity to engage with communities facing similar challenges. Measurements and goals Resulting from this implementation plan, projects are anticipated to:

• Result in tangible assets through housing development. • Provide opportunities for those in the region live where they work. • Begin to “close the gap,” providing special attention and focus to the middle market

and transition from affordable housing.

11 | P a g e

ATTACHMENTS

• Meeting Minutes: October and December 2013 • Support Letters

12 | P a g e

Mid-Columbia Housing Meeting Thursday, October 17, 2013

The Dalles City Hall Council Chambers Attending: Amanda Hoey, Ruby Mason, Gary Thompson, Cliff Jett, Steve Lawrence, Bill Fashing, Carol Roderick, Candy Armstrong, Andrea Klaas, Rob Hallyburton, John Arens, Rod Runyon, Arthur Babitz, Maui Meyer, Steve Shaffer, Kim Travis, Bob McFadden, Annette Liebe Introductions and Review of Meeting Purpose Amanda Hoey welcomed attendees, who all introduced themselves and their organizational affiliation. Amanda reviewed the meeting purpose which was to move towards action with a specific focus on preparing a concept paper to present to the North Central Advisory Committee on a $2 million request to address the regional housing need. Additional focus areas for the meeting included: Identify additional strategies to progress on meeting housing needs, designing a path for regional support and identifying lead entities and individuals. Housing is a complex issue and the region has gone through multiple meetings and planning efforts with great resulting ideas; many of which have been resource constrained. We have a unique opportunity to leverage state funds to begin addressing some of the issues. Amanda discussed the geographic scope for the meeting. Housing is a regional issue for all five of the counties served by MCEDD (Hood River, Wasco and Sherman counties in Oregon and Klickitat and Skamania counties in Washington) as well as our neighbors to the east and west. Capacity issues should be addressed at a bi-state level and we recognize the bi-state impact of housing inventory. The focus on the State of Oregon funding opportunity is specific to Sherman, Wasco and Hood River counties, however, so the primary focus for this meeting. The geographic focus is not limiting to our overall strategies, however. Housing definitions were also discussed. Housing discussions have covered “attainable,” “affordable” and “workforce” housing. For the purpose of this conversation we are focused on “attainable housing.” Generally, this covers housing availability for all income levels. It encompasses all types of housing as well, including single- and multi-family housing options. Annette Liebe described the opportunity presented by State of Oregon funds and what they can be used for. They would be able to potentially support a revolving loan fund but are not for planning purposes.

September 5 Meeting Summary Meeting attendees were provided with a copy of meeting notes from the September 5 meeting led by Kim Travis. Amanda asked for any questions or refinement needed as well as identification of any barriers not yet captured.

• Mayor Lawrence inquired as to whether the Oregon Housing and Community Services restructuring impacts the discussion. It is not directly related and Kim Travis offered to discuss in more detail at the end of the meeting.

• Cliff Jett inquired as to whether the parking issues listed are a state or local ordinance. Rob Hallyburton from DLCD provided a response. Many of those are local decisions within certain parameters, such as federal ADA requirements.

• Barriers: Discussion of what could be influenced by the region and what was largely out of our control. For instance, the area has control of certain factors affecting the cost of construction (such as SDCs, increasing the ease and reducing the time for permitting) but cannot control many factors affecting the cost of construction (market price of land, labor, materials).

Concept Paper Meeting attendees were provided with a copy of a draft concept paper. Amanda described that the concept was developed based on past meetings, informal discussions with developers about their needs, and correspondence between regional entities. She emphasized that the concept is a draft and sought feedback. A list of key questions was provided with the concept paper. Overall discussion included:

• “Attainable” versus “Affordable.” We want to be very specific in the language used in the concept. All terms should reflect “attainable” housing.

• “Multi-family” versus “single family.” Preference was for all types to be covered. • Leveraging the fund. John Arens discussed the opportunity to use Agora. • Measurements and goals:

o Results in tangible assets o Provides opportunities to work where you live (an individual choice) o Begins to “close the gap.” Special attention and focus to the middle

market and transition from affordable housing. o Using funding to drive the type of development we want to see. A range of

housing should be available and the housing should be “appropriate to the people who want to live there.”

o Measure against the regional housing plan benchmarks RLF Discussion and Criteria

• Annette asked if an RLF is the right type of mechanism. Those present agreed that it was, noting the lack of any preferred alternatives.

• This RLF should be modeled after existing RLF housing programs. • Use of the fund: Preference for pre-construction focused. Also preference for

rehabilitation uses. Finally, loan guarantees are also an area of interest. Advised against use of the fund for pre-development costs citing the risks inherent in that

type of financing and that it could be a “black hole” for funds. Ultimate borrowers should not use the funds to build or enhance vacation rentals as it does not address the issue. Enforcement could require deed restrictions.

• Fund should also be used as a gap financing tool and not compete with other resources. If funding for a project could be obtained through a commercial lender, CDBG, USDA or other source, it is not an appropriate use of the local RLF funds.

• The group recognizes that each County has fundamentally different housing issues. Options to address included:

o Build the RLF management plan to offer variable criteria depending on the project location. The RLF fund use should be tied back to housing needs expressed by each county/city.

o Cliff described the need to ensure small communities have access to the fund. Suggestions included weighting for small communities or scaled criteria.

o The group discussed whether to focus on “acute needs” or equity by geography. Overall preference was for need-based focus. Rod Runyon described the MCEDD loan funds, as an example of funds available for multiple counties with allocation by primary need rather than geography.

o Analysis regionally (bi-state) of available housing, with these funds directed at Oregon- Hood River, Wasco and Sherman.

• Leverage and match requirements. Required of both the fund and the ultimate recipient/borrower.

• Public decision making and vetting o Screen by jurisdiction. Arthur Babitz recommended that projects should

include a project sponsor from a city/county. o Maui Meyer discussed the need for public decision making and vetting

(public body decision making and general public participation) • Terms: The group was concerned with the speed at which the fund revolves and

had a preference for shorter terms, but the terms (length) of each loan would be deal dependent based on the borrower’s needs.

• Infrastructure and pre-development must already be complete in order to seek funding.

• Collateral will be required to secure the loan. • Administration costs.

Capacity The next meeting will focus on this item. Steve Lawrence discussed the need to ensure recognition and planning from the ground up. Outreach Plan and Next Steps Annette inquired as to the best manner to move this forward and ensure regional buy-in.

• Arthur suggested a City/County pair work together to seek endorsement from the cities and counties in the affected geography

• RLF Plan. Next steps include: o Working group by email to provide detailed refinement. Contact Amanda

Hoey if interested in participating.

o Banking partners will be engaged in review of the RLF concept. o Present the final concept to the North Central Advisory Committee for

review and approval. • Capacity and next meeting. In addition to those present, the group suggested

invitations to: o Washington Housing Authority o Gorge Commission

Next meeting will focus on the capacity side. Amanda will send a meeting schedule request electronically. Other Kim Travis followed up on Mayor Lawrence’s question regarding the structure of Oregon Housing and Community Services. Meeting adjourned.

Attainable Housing Discussion Friday, December 6, 2013

10 am, The Dalles City Council Chambers Introductions Amanda Hoey, Kate Allen (phone), Arthur Babitz (phone), Annette Liebe (phone), David Meriwether, Maui Meyer, Joel Madsen, Gary Thompson, Darren Nichols, Bob McFadden, Steve Lawrence, Rod Runyon, Scott Edelman, Keef Morgan, Dennis Whitehouse Review of Previous Meetings Amanda provided a review of some of the key concepts of our proposal and the notes from previous meetings. Key concepts included:

• The focus for this effort is on attainable housing, which looks at all income levels and all types of housing

• We are looking at the development of a housing revolving loan fund to address some of the housing issues. It is needed in conjunction with a look at policy related issues that impact housing

• Geography: the housing RLF is focused on Hood River, Wasco and Sherman counties because the initial seed funding request is directed at state legislature through regional solutions. The capacity is directed regionally and has impacts to surrounding counties, including those in Washington.

Revolving Loan Fund Concept and Governance RLF Plan subcommittee: The following volunteered to support specific development of a Revolving Loan Fund plan, with samples provided by MCEDD from other entities.

• Amanda Hoey • Joel Madsen • Maui Meyer • Annette Liebe • Keef Morgan

Governance Three options were presented:

1) Existing regional entity (e.g. MCEDD). Benefits: lending experience, local knowledge, flexibility, less bureaucracy

2) Existing statewide entity. Benefits: Lending experience, economies of scale, access to funds/leverage

3) New committee/body or other. Discussion/Decision

• Annette stated that it is important to ensure leverage of funds and tailor the solution to solve the local problem

• David asked Annette to describe the option for funds for regional solutions priorities. Annette discussed the process, including the request to the legislature in February 2014.

• Decision: Prefer an RLF managed by MCEDD with technical assistance from Mid-Columbia Housing Authority and statewide nonprofits/entities

Capacity Amanda provided a draft document outlining key objectives, the need and tasks to address gaps and enhance capacity. She stated that the document was developed in large part by borrowing from the work of the Mid-Columbia Housing Authority (Joel Madsen and Ruby Mason) and Regional Solutions (Annette Liebe). She invited discussion on the draft and clarification of gaps:

• Keef Morgan requested that we add private development to key objective 1 and task 6. In task 6, we also need to add nonprofits.

• Maui noted the need to change the way governing bodies think about housing. Outreach is essential. Task 4

• Darren Nichols highlighted the opportunity to learn from the experience of others, including Oregon coastal communities. Task 5.

• Kate Allen mentioned her work and the tools and resources they can offer in the process.

• Joel Madsen discussed the need to convene, with an opportunity to develop an RFP. MCHA is a tool for the region

• Discussion on a presentation to the legislature • Darren discussed the $80K planning grant to the Commission and Urban Area

process. Timeline: Ruckelshaus/Oregon Consensus interviews as phase 1. Given the timing for this process, Amanda suggested that the interviews will peak interest in the housing issue topic which can be followed by the direct outreach described below.

• Discussion on regional vs Oregon. Reminder: RLF is a legislative request and has defined boundaries, but can operate in a similar manner to other MCEDD funds in which additional resources are leveraged. Capacity enhancement focuses regionally.

Next steps: 1) Develop presentation

- Scott Edelman offered to compile the available housing inventories and develop a summary

- Amanda Hoey will set up/host a worksite to share materials collaboratively - Joel Madsen will send the Needs Analysis/Market study he has available - Overall: The group will upload all documents and distill over late December.

2) Conduct outreach to local governments and large employers. Volunteers include: - Steve/Rod - Maui/Arthur

3) Conduct outreach to major employers:

- Direct outreach to key businesses (eg providence, MCMC, Insitu, etc) - Request participation in funding as well for employer assisted housing - Arthur noted he has connections in the tech community we can leverage

Timeline: - Present final to the RSC on January 21 - Prepare for February legislative session